HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-25-2002 - 1 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 25, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No. 1
SUBJECT: County/OCS/CHCCS Discussion/Policy Issues
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
As listed in "Background" John Link or Rod Visser, ext 2300
Donna Dean, ext 2151
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To discuss various issues with policy and/ or financial implications that are of
current interest to the Orange County Commissioners, Orange County Board of Education,
and/or Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education.
BACKGROUND: Both Superintendents have prepared memos that provide background
information on a variety of topics that will be addressed throughout this work session agenda.
Those memos are provided here for reference accordingly.
Attachment A — 3120102 Memo from OCS Superintendent
Attachment B— 3112102 Memo from CHCCS Superintendent
a. Short Term and Long Term High School Planning Considerations
During the past year, there has been extensive discussion about the need for additional high
school space within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system, while at the same time construction has
been underway on the new Cedar Ridge High School in the Orange County system. The
Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the BOCC and two school boards have had preliminary discussion
about a proposal included by the County Manager in the County's recommended 2002-2012
CIP that would lead to the formation of a short duration work group to examine both the short-
term and long-term implications of planning for additional high school space. A conceptual
outline for that work group and other communication about the need for high school space are
included for discussion by the three boards.
As discussions continue on potential high school sites and planning for the Chapel Hill
Township Park and Educational Campus, there are a number of different committees whose
work has implications for overall planning of a high school and that campus. The work group
proposed by the County Manager could serve as a clearinghouse for information developed by
these various committees. Staff will provide a handout at the meeting Monday night that
reviews proposed timetables for the park and a proposed high school, the inter-relationships
r `
2
between the committees, and how the new work group could pull together information from all
of these sources.
Attachment la - 1 — 3114102 "Conceptual Outline for High School Planning"
Attachment la - 2— 3119102 Memo from CHCCS Superintendent
Attachment la — 3 - 315102 CHCCS Memo Re: Responses to Questions Raised by
BOCC-Re: Third High School
b. OCS/CHCCS Committee on Collaboration Between School Systems
OCS and CHCCS representatives met in January 2002 to discuss, as requested by the
BOCC, opportunities for collaboration between the two school systems. The boards may wish
to discuss that committee's report.
Attachment lb — 211102 Collaboration Committee Report
c. Factors Affecting FY 2002-03 School Budgets
The downturn in the national economy during the past year and anticipated shortfalls in State's
current and next year's budgets have already begun to be felt by the County and the two
school systems and are likely to have major impacts on the formulation and administration of
FY 2002-03 budgets. Changes in student membership, increased health care costs for school
employees, and start up costs for the opening of Cedar Ridge High School are some of the
factors that will affect those budgets in Orange County and are matters for discussion at this
work session.
No Attachments
d. Priority Projects - Bond Renovation Funds, Alternative Financing, and Pay-as-You-
Go (PAYG)
The Boards may wish to review the proposed timetables for the County's sale of November
2001 bonds and the $37.7 million in alternative financing that has been proposed to
supplement the funding available to address important County and school capital needs over
the next five years.
Attachment 1 d— Table— "Proposed Projects by Fiscal Year"
e. OCS/CHCCS Capital Investment Plans
This topic provides the opportunity for Commissioners and others to seek clarification
concerning remaining CIP projects (those about which Commissioners have questions).
Attachment le— 1 Excerpt from County 2002-2012 CIP— OCS Capital Projects
Summary
Attachment le— 2 Excerpt from County 2002-2012 CIP— CHCCS Capital Projects
Summary
Attachment le— 3 3111102 CHCCS Superintendent Memo Re: C/P
Attachment 1e— 4 1130102 CHCCS Superintendent Memo Re: Proposed 2002-12 CIP
Attachment 9e— 5 1128102 CHCCS Staff Memo Re: Proposed CIP 2002-12
3
f. School/Parks - Operations, Maintenance and Community Access
Collaborative planning for the joint development and use of parks and recreation facilities by
school systems and local governments has become an important focus in Orange County.
This topic provides the opportunity for the Boards to discuss the status of joint projects that are
underway or on the drawing board, to review understanding s about operation and
maintenance of such facilities, and to discuss expectations about broad community access to
these facilities.
Attachment If— 1 CHCCS Policy on "Community Use of School Facilities"
Attachment If- 2 List of Community Use of CHCCS Facilities
Attachment If— 3 3120102 Memo from CHCCS Assistant Superintendent Re: Soccer
Fields
g. Pre-K Programming —Operational and Capital Budget Impacts
Both Superintendents spoke to issues related to pre-kindergarten programming in their
background memos for this work session(Attach ments A and B). A table detailing CHCCS
pre-K classroom use is attached.
Attachment 1 g— 1128102 CHCCS Staff Memo Re: PreK/Head Start Program and Space
h. School Facilities Task Force Report— Issues Requiring Further
Discussion/Resolution
In April 2001, the School Facilities Task Force issued its report to the Board of
Commissioners. The task force had been charged to develop recommendations regarding
school construction standards, school capacity, and other related matters that might have a
bearing on projects to be included in the November 2001 bond referendum. A number of
questions were left for further discussion —for example, a final determination of which
methodology to use for projecting future student populations for capital planning purposes.
The boards may wish to discuss specific matters that they would like addressed by a
reconstituted task force on school construction standards.
Attachment 1h —April 2001 School Facilities Task Force Report Summary
i. Joint Determination of School Capacities
This topic provides for discussion of the method by which the BOCC and school boards jointly
determine school capacities. For reasons noted in Superintendent Pedersen's memo at
Attachment B, CHCCS has prepared calculations for revisions to existing capacities.
Attachment 1i— Table— CHCCS 2002-03 School Capacity
j. School Siting Matters —OCS Middle School #4, Proposed CHCCS High School #3
As noted by Superintendent Bridges in his memo at Attachment A, Orange County Schools
are in the process of examining sites for the third OCS middle school, which will be funded
using bonds approved by Orange County voters in November 2001. As discussed elsewhere
on this agenda, CHCCS are examining the need for and possible siting of a third high school.
For reference purposes, an excerpt from BOCC policy related to school site standards is
attached.
Attachment 1 j— Excerpt from "Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects"
4 ,
k. Middle College High School Program
Representatives of both school systems and the County visited Guilford County in February
2002 to observe the Middle College High School Program administered by the Guilford County
Schools. This meeting provides an opportunity for the three boards to discuss how various
aspects of that program might be replicated in Orange County, perhaps in collaboration with
Durham Tech officials.
No Attachments
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact tied directly to the discussion at this
meeting. However, decisions that the school boards and BOCC will make at subsequent
meetings are likely to have significant implications for future capital and operating budgets.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the boards discuss the issues
noted and provide direction to staff, as appropriate.
• _ r �—'T
Orange County
Board of
Education MEMORANDUM
TO: John Link
FROM: Randy Bridges
Randy Bridges
Superintendent RE: March 25, 2002 Joint Meeting
Board Members: DATE: March 20, 2002
Brenda Stephens,Chair
Dana Thompson,Vice Chair
Robert Bateman Listed below are brief comments about selected items for the meeting
Keith cook with the Commissioners on Monday night:
Susan Halkiotis
David Kolbinsky
Delores Simpson Factors Affecting FY 2002-03 School Budget
• The current condition of the State Budget poses a dilemma for the
county as well as our school system. I am sure this crisis will
200 East zing Street
Hillsborough,NC 27278 have an impact on our local budget. Salary increases and Health
Telephone: 919-732-8126 Insurance have been the main items that have affected the
FAX: 919-732-8120 mandate portion of our local budget over the past several years. If
the state provides increases for the coming school year, it will be
reflected in our local budget request as well.
~'�' • The preliminary state enrollment projections for our system next
year are showing a decrease. It appears that the enrollment
estimates for the Chapel Hill/Carrboro system will again be
increasing. As you may recall, this placed our system in a
difficult position last year, and it appears that we are heading for
the same position for the 2002-03 school year.
• The major portion of our budget will be needed to address start-up
costs for Cedar Ridge High School. We shared with your staff
that we estimated the cost to be between $1.2-1.7 million. We are
in the process of finalizing our needs, and will present that
information to our Board at our next meeting in April.
Priority Projects—Bond Renovations,Alternative Funding, and Pay-
As-You-Go (PAYG)
• The Hillsborough Elementary/Central Office Expansions were
presented to the Bond Funding Task Force as a joint project. We
currently have central office personnel located on site at this
school. We want to increase the student capacity for the school by
using the wing that currently houses central office staff. There are
additional needs at the school such as air quality issues, storage
Orange County schmis
"Providing educational opportunities for successfal futures."
John Link -2- March 20, 2002
space, workrooms for teachers, mold issues, relocating the media
center, and providing additional restrooms for students. In order
to exparid/renovate Hillsborough Elementary, we need the on-site
space occupied by central office staff. Hillsborough Elementary
will receive $900,000 from the Bond passage in November, and
$1.6 million was designated in the Alternative Financing category
for Central Office expansion.
• We also requested$950,000 for renovations at Orange High
School. This item was placed in the Alternative Financing
category. We would like to see the needs at Orange High School
addressed earlier than the 2004 date suggested in the timeline for
securing these funds. We would replace the fire alarm system, the
intercom system, renovate the media center/cafeteria, and replace
several exterior doors, and ceiling tiles.
Pre-K Programming—Operational and Capital Budget Impact
• Orange County Partnership for Young Children, Chapel Hill
Outreach Project, Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools, and our
system were selected as one of the More at Four Grant recipients.
The grant will allow our system to serve sixty-eight at-risk
students in Pre-K classes. Prior to receiving this grant, we worked
with the Chapel Hill Outreach Project on a Federal Grant to
assume management of the Head Start Program located in the
Northern Orange Human Services Building. We were also
successful in securing that grant. The collaborative effort between
all the various community entities was the selling point in our
receiving approval for both grants. We currently have one class
at Pathways Elementary, with 16 students enrolled. This class
was approved two years ago and is funded locally. There are 33
students in the NHSB and beginning April 8`h these students will
be moved to three of our schools. Efland-Cheeks Elementary will
have 10 students,New Hope Elementary will have 9, and
Pathways Elementary will have a second class with 12 students.
An additional seven students have also been approved to enter the
program beginning on April 8`h.
We believe having the opportunity to interact with this portion of our
student population that often enters our schools behind can be better
served with this program. We have tried to implement the program
for several years,but were unable to do so because of the lack of
funding. The arrangement has virtually no cost to our system, but of
course we have slightly reduced building level capacity in four
schools. We are very fortunate that we are in a position to
John Link -3- March 20, 2002
accommodate these students. In the coming years we expect to see
positive results in developing the total child.
School Siting Matters
The Board has established December 31, 2002 as the deadline for
identifying a site for our new middle school.'As you are aware, we have
limitations for siting our schools because of the costs of providing water
and sewer. For that reason we have continued to look at locating a new
school in the Pathways Elementary School area, and I have had
discussions with Craig Benedict about water issues in the Efland area as it
relates to school sites. We feel the Efland area would be an excellent
location for a new middle school as well. We hope to appoint the
committee in the spring and work to meet the December 2002 deadline.
We also appreciate the Commissioners appointing Moses Carey to work
with us on this project.
/ha
c: Orange County Board of Commissioners
Orange County Board of Education
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
c>U a.,�•r`�
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Neil G. Pedersen Nettie Collins-Hart, Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent for Instructional Services
Raymond J.-Reitz _. Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent
Chief Technology Officer for Support Services
TO: John Link
Orange County Manager
FROM: Neil G. Pederse
Superintendent
RE: Items and Background Information from CHCCS for the March 25'
Agenda
DATE: March 12, 2002
Background Information on Anticipated BOCC Agenda Items
School Capacities
We have updated our school capacities (Attachment No. 1)using the same formulas
on which we have agreed previously. In some cases,rooms are being used for a different
purpose (e.g. special education or pre-k). The capacities have been adjusted to reflect the
current program in the school when a K-5 classroom is used for a different purpose. When
a special classroom (e.g. a science room) is used as a K-5 classroom, capacities have not
been adjusted upward because if the school were not overcrowded, this space would be
used for its intended purpose. In addition,we have adjusted for a kindergarten class size
of 22 instead of 23 because the state decreased kindergarten class size last year(and is
scheduled to reduce it to 21 in 2002-03).
Pre-kindergarten Classes
A report on our current pre-kindergarten program is attached (Attachment No. 2),
which also includes information regarding its impact on our school capacities. We would
remind the BOCC that a pre-kindergarten class is included in the building standards for
elementary schools. From an educational point of view, there clearly is a growing
emphasis on early childhood education across the state and nation. At the state level,this
was begun by Governor Hunt through the Smart Start program and has been continued by
Governor Easley in the More at Four initiative. Both programs are intended to operate
under a collaborative relationship between community agencies and boards of education.
Consequently, programs may or may not be sited in the schools. Our experience has been
that we can better support school-based programs and that these help to facilitate smoother
transitions to our K-5 program. At the same time, approximately half of the pre-k
programs that we operate are community-based. Unless the state economy derails the
effort,the BOCC can expect that early childhood education will have a growing impact on
the public schools and will require additional operating and capital resources.
L
Community Use of Facilities
The fact that this item once again appears on a joint agenda indicates that there is a
continuing perception that our schools are not as accessible to the public as they should be.
To the contrary, we believe that our facilities are used extensively and that polices are in
place to promote such use. Attached is documentation of actual community use over a
recent period of time (Attachment No. 3) as well as copies of Board policies that govern
accessibility to our school facilities (Attachment No.4). These policies were revised
several years ago after this concern was raised.
Collaboration between the School Districts
Representatives from both school districts have met at both the Board and the
Administration levels. A response to the specific charges of the BOCC is attached
(Attachment No. 5).
Middle College Program/ Durham Tech Satellite Campus
Although several of our Board members and I attended the visit to the Middle
College Program in Guilford County, we have not discussed it formally with the entire
Board of Education. All of us who participated in the trip were favorably impressed and
believe that it is deserving of further study. The two superintendents recently met with
representatives from Durham Tech and learned that there is interest on their part to pursue
opportunities in this area. Follow-up meetings will be held and I anticipate that we'll put
this on a Board agenda within the next several months. The earliest that a program could
start would be in 2003-04.
It would be helpful if the BOCC could update our Board on the process for locating
a site for the satellite campus. We,certainly, are interested in a site that is accessible to the
residents in our school district, preferably using public transportation. The Board would
like to be represented on a site search committee.
We also are interested in expanding the current partnerships that we have with
Durham Tech, whether they are through the Middle College Program or other
opportunities. I envision more Durham Tech courses operated on our campuses for our
students and that we will have a growing number of students who would attend classes
both at our high schools and at Durham Tech.
Use of Segal Consultants
We are using Segal consultants for two projects,both of which relate to collecting
sales tax. We have not entered into an agreement at this time for Segal to conduct a study
that could identify other savings in our district's operations. We are very interested in the
possibility of Segal or another firm conducting such a study and have included this as a
strategy in our recently developed strategic plan. Although some would characterize
Segal's services as being free of charge, they are not. The district must compensate Segal
for one-year's worth of any savings identified. These, of course, are savings that could
benefit the school district if the district identified them itself. Knowing that the Orange
County Schools have entered into such an agreement with Segal, we would like to have the
benefit of their experience before we take the next step. In the meantime, we continue to
look for opportunities to increase the efficiency of operation of our district.
Items Requested for Discussion by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
City Schools
Master Planning of the Eubanks Road/Old 86 Site
The CHCCS Board of Education is eager to move forward with plans for
constructing new facilities as soon as possible for its growing student population. This site
is a critical piece of our overall facility planning effort. Our two Board representatives are
Gloria Faley and Nick Didow. We urge the BOCC to move forward quickly with the
convening of this planning committee.
As our facility planning has proceeded, this site has been identified as a possible
location for not only an elementary school, but for a middle and/or high school as well.
We are eager to engage in a planning effort that would develop scenarios that might include
one, two, or three schools on this site. We need to coordinate our school facility needs
with the need for passive and active parks. Plans also need to proceed for getting water
and sewer services to this site.
We request that a date for the first meeting of this planning committee be set within
the next few weeks and that it proceed on an aggressive schedule.
Facilities Task Force
At our joint meeting last fall, we understood that the facilities task force, which
never really completed its work, would be reconvened to review feedback on the earlier
document and new issues that have arisen. Despite repeated requests from CHCCS
representatives,the task force has never met again. Issues that remain to be addressed
include making adjustments in the square foot costs to account for inflation, standards for
high performance schools, space for pre-k classrooms, space to accommodate community
agencies, and methodology for projecting student enrollments. Recently, we have been
discussing the possibility of constructing smaller high schools; therefore, that also needs to
be added to the agenda. We ask that the Facilities Task Force be reconvened within the
next few weeks.
School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO)
We request an update from the BOCC on the status of the approval schedule for
SAPFO. Our Board approved an earlier version long ago but recognizes that it must
approve a revised version once it is finalized.
Capital Investment Plan
By the time of our joint meeting,the BOCC already will have received the County
Manager's CIP, including the submission by the CHCCS Board of Education. We would
be more than happy to answer questions on March 25'regarding any aspects of this plan
or to provide an overview if time permits. Attached to this memo is a response to questions
raised by the BOCC at its February retreat about the possibility of our district planning for
the construction of a small high school (Attachment No. 6). Commissioner Gordon, the
BOCC's liaison for a high school site, has been kept abreast of developments relating to
site acquisition. We also have attached memos written by the administration pertaining to
the CIP(Attachment No. 7). At its March Th meeting, the Board directed the
administration to move forward with preliminary plans for a high school no smaller than
750 students on,preferably, a site in the southern end of our district or, alternatively,in the
north, which would include the Eubanks Road/Old 86 site. We, of course, will follow the
County Commissioners' regulations for proceeding with this and all other major capital
projects.
Communications (does not require discussion)
Recently, the district has begun to place Board agendas and the supporting
documents on our website (http://www.chccs.kI2.nc.us/). In order to improve
communications,BOCC members and identified county staff members will receive an
email,normally on the Friday preceding a Thursday Board meeting, announcing that these
materials are available on our website. We would appreciate a reciprocal arrangement with
the BOCC.
DRAFT
CONCEPTUAL OUTLINE FOR HIGH SCHOOL PLANNING
March 14, 2002
• Given the current constrained financial landscape, before BOCC responds
regarding new high school proposal, it would be prudent to examine the
matter in the historical context of previous high school planning efforts
• East Chapel Hill High — collaborative process over several months of work
groups created to develop siting and programming recommendations
• Cedar Ridge
• OCS commitment to fund roughly half of the new high school
construction cost out of OCS CIP pay-as-you-go (PAYG) revenues
• Resulted in serious constraints for OCS in ability to pursue other PAYG
projects
• Suggestion to develop a short term work group, consisting of representatives
of all 3 governing boards and staff, to examine both the short-term and long-
term implications of planning for additional high school space
• Work group would use resources of an external consultant with experience in
counties with multiple school systems to help guide discussion and keep
process moving
• Scope of the work group's examination regarding high school space could
include, but not necessarily be limited to:
• Need for additional space
• Timing of that need
• Options for paying for new space
• Location
• Relation to land use plans
• Relation to transportation plans
• Water and sewer service provision implications
• Size
• Long-term educational benefits of smaller vs. larger high schools
• Remaining capacity at existing high schools
• "Level of service" standards for measuring overcrowding situations
• Appropriate revisions to adopted school construction standards
3-22-02; 8:08AM;Ch. Hill / Carrboro ;919 969 2474 # 3% 4
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Neil G. Pedersen Nettie Collins-Hart, Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent for Instructional Services
Raymond J. Reitz Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent
Chief Technology Officer for Support Services
TO: John Link
Orange County Manager
FROM: Neil G. Pedersen
Superintendent
RE: Response to March 15,2002 Memo from County Manager
DATE: March 19,2002
In your memo of March 15,2002 you asked me to be specific about the reasons for
the School Board giving consideration to constructing smaller high schools. "Is [it] driven
by the perceived lack of financial resources for constructing a larger high school,by
preference for the educational model,or some other factors?" (Let me clarify that at this
time, "smaller"high school means one with approximately 750 students.)
I introduced the idea of constructing smaller high schools based upon the
recommendations in reports that have been released for the past several years on high
school reform. I would be happy to prepare background information on this topic for the
County Commissioners and/or provide information on where these reports can be accessed
(some of this information has been shared in earlier memos that have been shared with the
County Manager). Smaller high schools lend themselves to the establishment of a much
greater sense of community that oftentimes is missing in large,comprehensive high
schools. Research indicates that smaller schools are associated with greater academic
achievement,fewer discipline problems,better attendance, improved interpersonal
relationships,and greater participation in the school's extra-curricular and co-curricular
activities.
As the move to smaller high schools progresses,many districts are meeting this
challenge by establishing small schools within existing,large high school structures. No
district can afford to abandon the investment that it has in these large facilities. In the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, we have a wonderful opportunity to actually design a
facility that is consistent with these program considerations.
The second reason for considering a smaller high school is related to available
resources. The need for a third high school was discussed with the Capital Needs Task
Force and the BOCC during the process for deciding what would be in the 2001 bond
referendum,but the BOCC did not choose to include this request in the total bond package.
This is understandable because of the limitations on the County's indebtedness and the
School Board's priority on funding two elementary schools. Nevertheless,projections at
the time indicated that high schools would reach a 110%LOS by 2005-06 and revised
74 # 4!
3-22-02; 8:08AM;Ch. Hill / Carrboro ;919 969 24 ' 4 .
2
projections based on 2001-02 enrollment indicate that this level will be reached in 2003-04.
By 2005 our high schools will be more than 750 students over capacity and more than
1000 students over by 2007. The Board of Education and the BOCC have a joint
responsibility for providing sufficient capacity for all of the students in the district. To this
end, the CHCCS administration has made an effort to combine revenues from a variety of
funding sources to pool enough funds to construct a high school facility. We believe that
the$15.2 million of potentially available funds is minimally adequate to construct a small
high school facility, perhaps providing for the possibility of adding on to the facility in the
future.
I should add that Board members are very concerned that a school of this size may
only be a stop gap measure. Our current plan calls for a second smaller high school to be
constructed prior to 2010 to keep up with projected enrollments. Of course, at this time
there is no provision for funding a second small school. I believe that the Board would be
open to considering a larger high school with provisions for dividing it up into schools
within schools if there were sufficient funding. If the BOCC believes that there could be
additional funds for a 1000 student high school (a 1000 student capacity high school will
cost approximately$28—30 million),I believe that the Board of Education would want to
consider such a project.
The third consideration relates to available sites. The Board of Education has
expressed a preference for a third high school being sited in the southern end of the school
district. Both current high schools are located in the northern portion of the district. An
analysis of projected high school students shows large numbers in the south with no school
in their vicinity. Parents complain about long rides to and from CHHS and ECHHS. A
search for high school sites in the southern end of the district turned up no sites that could
support a 1500 student high school. At least one site can support a school of
approximately 750 students, although its athletic facilities may be limited. Although site
availability is not driving this decision, it is a real factor that must be considered. The
Board of Education did express a willingness to consider a northern site if the southern site
did not work out.
These are the three overriding considerations that we have discussed for
constructing a smaller high school,in what I consider to be the priority order.
Cc: Board of Education
s
ti CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Neil G. Pedersen Nettie Collins-Hart, Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent for Instructional Services
Raymond J. Reitz Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent
Chief Technology Officer for Support Services
TO: Barry Jacobs, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
John Link
Orange County Manager
FROM: Valerie Foushee, Chair J��
Board of Education
Neil G. Pederse
Superintendent
l
RE: Responses to Questions Raised by BOCC Re Third High School
DATE: March 5, 2002
1. What funding sources could be identified to pay for new 'CHCCS high
school space?
As the Commissioners know, there were not sufficient funds approved for the bond
referendum or the alternative financing package to support a new high school. There
still is no way to construct a large, comprehensive high school (1000 or 1500 students)
with available funds unless we did not build the second elementary school. This is one
reason that we are proposing the construction of two smaller high schools and, under a
somewhat optimistic scenario, we would have sufficient funds to construct the first of
these. We have budgeted a total of$15,188,987 (excluding land)which comes from
the following sources: Alternative financing in 2004-05 ($3,700,000); impact fees
($9,999,208); the Public School Building Fund ($989,779), and balance from ECHHS
($500,000). We believe that this level of funding would allow us to build a high
school, with some limitation on facilities, for 500 to 700 students.
2. What cost savings might be associated with having two smaller new
high schools rather than one larger new high school?
This proposal is not based on projected cost savings. The financial benefit, as
described above,is that there may be sufficient funds to proceed with a smaller high
school whereas a large high school is out of the question. It also allows us to bring
capacity on as needed rather than building more than is needed and waiting for it to fill
up. Some savings are possible if a scaled-back athletic program is found to be
acceptable. Most high school positions are allocated on a per-pupil basis, so the
additional cost for personnel is not as great as one might expect. If the high school is
located in the Southern end of the district, it could reduce transportation costs.
3. What cost duplications might be associated with having two smaller new
high schools rather than one larger new high school?
Until the programs are better defined, it is difficult to identify all of the duplications.
Clearly,there are some duplications if two comprehensive, stand-alone schools are
built (e.g. kitchen, cafeteria, athletic fields, media center, etc.). However, the extra
amount of space for core facilities certainly isn't double the amount because the size of
each of these spaces would be smaller at each small high school. Also, we intend to
think creatively about some of these areas, such as the cafeteria and media center.
Perhaps a smaller high school does not need such large, dedicated spaces.
4. What options have been examined, and either accepted or dismissed, as
a result of the collaboration initiative between OCS and CHCCS related
to school space and programming?
See February 1, 2002 memo to the Chair of the BOCC on the status of the collaboration
committee.
5. Should requests for any new high school space be considered in
isolation from the perspective of only the one requesting school system,
or evaluated in the context of the need of both school systems.and the
overall Orange County community?
At this time there are two legally constituted school districts in Orange County and there
have been no proposals formally made that would require the merger of the two
districts. Consequently, the two districts should be perceived as separate entities with
the responsibility to serve all eligible students within their respective jurisdictions.
Both districts have indicated a willingness to collaborate when opportunities make this
advantageous. A survey will be conducted this spring to determine students' interest in
attending programs in the neighboring school district. This will give us a better idea of
the potential impact of students being allowed or encouraged to attend schools in the
other district. It is neither fair not legal for either school district to compel students to
attend a school in a district that does not serve its residents.
6. Should adopted school construction standards be revisited and possibly
amended to recognize models other than the 1,000 student and 1,500
student models in the current standards?
Yes, if the CHCCS Board of Education approves a plan with a capacity less than 1,000
students, it would be reasonable to develop standards for a school of this size. It
should be understood,however, that the school's program may dictate a facility that
varies from these standards. The BOE would expect to request Commissioner approval
for variations and would make every effort to stay within the budget called for by the
standards.
7. What interpretations should be placed on recent high school student
membership and projection figures? Do they represent "trends" or
"blips". How does one discern the difference and conduct facility
planning accordingly?
High school membership is easier to project than membership in elementary schools
because patterns already have been established in the early grades. Our projections are
based on the assumption that past rates of in-migration will continue. The high school
projections definitely reflect trends,not blips. Admittedly, trends can change to some
extent. That is one of the advantages of the smaller high school model. The chances of
over-building are minimal because they are built in smaller units.
8. What acreage is truly needed to accommodate a high school site?
For a 1500 student, comprehensive high school , the need is approximately 55
buildable acres. This is the amount of space available to us at ECHHS. The amount of
acreage for a smaller high school would largely be dictated by the extent of the athletic
program. Constructing buildings on three floors or sharing athletic facilities could
reduce this acreage requirement.
9. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and other implications of using
existing structures to house new high schools?
Using or expanding existing structures has the following advantages: (1) site is already
owned; (2)utilities are already in place; (3)the location may be closer to more densely
populated areas of the district; and(4)the community may be less resistant. The
disadvantage is that renovation can be just as costly as new construction, yet present a
number of serious design constraints. Another disadvantage is that the program in the
existing building is displaced.
10. What are the implications for emerging pre-K programming on the
overall space needs of both school systems?
There is no question that the increased demand for serving three and four-year olds and
the legal requirement to serve exceptional education students from age three will reduce
the K-5 capacity of our elementary schools. It should be pointed out,however, that the
current facility standards call for one pre-k class per school. If populations evenly
distribute themselves, we do not envision more than this number of pre-k classes in our
schools in the near future. This will hold true as long as we continue to operate
programs in Carr Court, at Second Baptist Church, and in the Lincoln Center. If these
sites were lost, we would be looking at more like two pre-k classes per school. See
accompanying memo with additional details.
Cc: Board of Education
Steve Scroggs
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Neil G. Pedersen Nettie Collins-Hart, Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent for Instructional Services
Raymond J. Reitz Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent
Chief Technology Officer for Support Services
TO: Barry Jacobs, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Collaboration Committee
RE: Outcome of Collaboration Committee Discussions
DATE: February 1, 2002
On January 29'Keith Cook,Brenda Stephens, Valerie Foushee, Teresa Williams,
Randy Bridges, and Neil Pedersen met to discuss the areas for collaboration suggested by
the County Commissioners. We agreed upon the following course of action.
• Joint educational opportunities will be identified through a survey of high school
students to be administered this spring by both school districts. Next steps will be
determined by the feedback that we receive.
• The districts will request proposals from independent parties to conduct an analysis of
the opportunities afforded by joint operations of services such as transportation,child
nutrition,purchasing, and maintenance. Once a selection is made, we will seek
financial support from the County Commissioners to complete the study.
• Issues related to the siting and planning of facilities will be referred to the Facilities
Task Force.
• The two superintendents will develop a definition of"mandates"and seek to reach
agreement with the County Manager.
• During the 2002-03 school year, the districts will determine the amount of"excess
capacity"in the two districts and seek input from school governance committees,
parents, and students concerning their interest in students attending schools in the other
school district and in the possibility of merging the two school districts.
• The school districts are not interested in exploring the possibility of locating the two
central offices in one building. Such an arrangement would make very little sense for
the administrations or our publics.
• The school districts also believe that the areas identified above should be explored
before consideration is given to merging the two school districts. If at some time in the
future the Commissioners desire to conduct a merger study, they should take the lead
role.
Compiled by the Orange County Budget Office
3107102
Table 4. Proposed Projects by Fiscal Year (Preliminary)
Timetable is based on information submitted by the County's bond partners regarding their priorities and proposed timelines.
FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 Total
Bond Alternative Bond Alternative Bond Alternative Bond Alternative Bond Alternative Alternative Bond Alternative Project Total
A B C D E F G H I J L M N O
1 Schools 1
2 CHCCS-Chapel Hill High $750,000 $0 $1,250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 2
S 3 CHCCS Elementary#10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,125,000 $0 $11,675,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,800,000 $0 $12,800,000 3
4 CHCCS Elementary#9 $11,100,000 $0 $1,700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,800,000 $0 $12,800,000 4
CHCCS Unfunded from Bond
Request(not yet identified by
5 CHCCS) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,700,000 $0 1 $0 $0 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $0 $11,100,000 $11,100,000 5
6 OCS-Hillsborough Elementaa $900,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $900,000 $0 $900,000 6
OCS Addition to Board of
Education Building(to relocate
central office staff from $0 $1,650,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hillsborough Elementary site to
Cameron Street and allow for
7 expansion ofHES) $0 $1,650,000 $1,650,000 7
8 OCS Middle School#3 $500,000 $0 $5,000,000 $9,500,000 $0 $3,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,500,000 $0 $18,500,000 8
9 OCS Orange High Renovations $0 $950,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $950,000 $950,000 9
10 Total Schools $13,250,000 $2,600,000 $7,950,000 $0 $10,625,000 $3,700,000 $15,175,000 $0 $0 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $47,000,000 $13,700,000 $60,700,000 10
Parks,Recreation&Open
11 Space $0 11
12 Cedar Grove District Park $200,000 $0 $750,000 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $0 $1,200,000 12
13 Chapel Hill District Park $300,000 $0 $600,000 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $0 $1,200,000 13
14 Efland Cheeks Park Phase 2 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 $250,000 14
15 Fairview Park $100,000 $0 $375,000 $0 $375,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $850,000 $0 $850,000 15
16 Greenway Development $400,000 $0 $200,000 $0 $575,000 $0 $575,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,750,000 $0 $1,750,000 16
17 Homestead Aquatics Center $0 $0 $3,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500,000 $0 $3,500,000 17
Lands Legacy(including
v priority projects identified
during Capital Needs Advisory
'c 18 Task Force process) $1,000,000 $0 $1,025,000 $0 $2,425,000 $0 $2,550,000 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000,000 $0 $7,000,000 18
x 19 Smith Middle School Park $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 $250,000 19
20 Soccer Super Fund $500,000 $0 $450,000 $0 $600,000 $0 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 20
21 Southern Community Park $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 21
Total Parks,Recreation and
22 Open Space $3,000,000 $0 $6,900,000 $0 $5,525,000 $0 $4,575,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000,000 $0 $20,000,000 22
23 Affordable Housing $1,300,000 $0 $1,300,000 $0 $1,400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 23
24 Conservation Easements $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 24
25 Senior Centers $0 25
26 Chapel Hill Center $500,000 $0 $1,250,000 $0 $1,250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 26
Northern/Central Orange
27 Center $0 $0 $250,000 $0 $750,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 27
28 Total Senior Centers $500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $6,000,000 28
29 Other County Facilities $0 $0 29
Community College Satellite
30 Campus Count Match $0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 30
Government Services Center
31 Addition $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $0 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 31
32 Justice Facility $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 32
33 Orange Enterprises $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 33
Planning&Ag Center
Renovations and Farmers
34 Market $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 34
35 Total Other County Facilities $0 $1,500,000 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 $9,500,000 $0 $0 1 $0 1 $3,750,000 1 $4,250,000 $0 $19,000,000 $19,000,000 35
36 Totall $18,050,000 $4,600,000 1 $17,650,000 1 $0 1 $19,550,000 $15,700,000 $19,750,000 1 $0 $0 1 $8,450,000 1 $8,950,000 $75,000,000 $37,700,000 $112,700,000 36
range County Schools Capital Projects Summary
Project
Funds
6/30102 2002-03 2003.04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009.10 2010.11 201142 Total
Bus Garage 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000
Cameron Park 270,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400,000 200,000 600,000 1,470,000
Renovations
Central Elementary 90,000 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 400,000 200,000 800,000 1,290,000
Renovations
Cedar Ridge High 27 980 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,960,000
School
Central office 0 1,660,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,050,000
Addition
Efiand Cheeks
Gymnasium/Office 450,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400,000 200,000 600,000 1,660,000
Addition
Flooring 0 64,000 159,000 166,000 65,000 42,000 109,000 36,000 53,000 0 0 973,000
Replacement -
Grady Brown 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 600,000 800,000
Renovations
Handicapped
Accessibility 670,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69,526 100,000 839,526
Projects
Hillsborough
Elementary 0 1,400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,400,000
;..Renovation
HVAC Projects 0 107,902 86,000 0 0 172,436 90,598 461,000 120,381 0 0 1,027,317
Maintenance Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155,000 0 0 155,000
New Middle School 0 0 5,000,000 9,500,000 4,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 18,500,000
Orange High School 1,858 000 0 0 950,000 0 0 0 0 0 189,000 289,000 3,086,000
Renovations
Playground 140,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 340,000
Protective Surfacing
Roofing Projects 656,636 0 121,113 0 0 280,000 696,671 875,920 217,860 67,573 156,674 3,074,446
Technology 8,960,000 825,000 625,000 513,433 455,840 713,338 626,000 625,000 625,000 626,000 825,000 13,008,611
Application Project
Total Project Costs 38,944,935 3,1138,902 5,090,113 11,128,433 4,511,840 1,207,774 1,723,269 1,987,920 2,571,241 1,651,098 3,570,674 77,123,900
62
Orange County Schools Proposed Project Funding
Project
Funds
6130102 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2003-06 2006-07 2007-06 200649 2009-10 2010.11 2011.12 Total
TotalPay,AS-You-0o 7,523,652 1,266,902 990,113 676;433 611,640 1,207,774 1,723,269 :1,967,920 2,571,241 1,661,099 3,670,674 23,702,917
Funds
Bond Funds
1997 Bands 16,766,963 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,766,993
2001 Bonds 0 900,000 6,000,000 9,500,000 4,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,400,000
2/3 Net OeM Bonds 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Bond Funds 16,766,963 900,000 5,000,000 9,500,000 4,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,166,963
Alternative Financing 11,660,000 1860 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,315,000
Grant Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 2,000,000 0 0 960,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,950,000
Total Project Funding 36,944,636 3,936,902 6,990,113 11,120,433 4,511,640 1,207,774 1,723;269 1,967,920 4571,241 1,661,099 3,670,674 77,123,900
r `l
r i
63
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Capital Projects Summary
Project Funds
.. d3a02 2002-03 2003-04 200445 200546 2006-07 200749 2006-09 200910 201041 2011.12 Total
Abatement PrgwW 851000 50,000 •50,000 50,000 50,000 60,000 410,000 60,000 425,000 75,000 75,000 1,390,000
High Site 0 1350000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,350,000
Hyh Sehaol Slts --
Americans With
Disabilities Act 213,150 25,000 25,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 523,159
(ADA)Compliance
Athlectic Facility 1,307,387 50,000 0 . 0 195,000 0 300,000 320,000 0 150,000 200,000 2,522,3117
Improvements
Central Office 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 3,200,000 2,330,600 0 0 0 5,970,600
Facilities
Chapel HE Nigh Air
Quality 0 750.000 1250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,090,000
Improvements
Classroom and
Academic Ares 0 120,000 0 0 0 O. 250,000 150,000 0 0 0 520,000
Improvements
Culbreth Middle
School Science 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 1,50.000 11500,000
Labs
Doors,Hardware, 0 218,123 195,000 0 0 " 0 50,000 75,000 75,000 0 0 613,123
and Canopies
Electrical Systems 0 125,000 0 0 0 520,000 0 0 0 0 0 745,000
Elementary School 1$580.784 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1;56017"
119
Elementary Scholl -- 0 0 0 1,125,000 9,725.000 2,450,000 0 0 0 0 0 12,009,000
,h110 .
'nergy Efflcieney
t;';i,�.and Ughting 251,318 0 - 0 0 0 330,000 200,000 1,088,000 220,000 0 0 2,029,316
Improvements
Field Bathroom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 195,000 300,000 0 0 495,000
Facilities
Fire,Safety and 249,400 540,000 415,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,204,400
Security Systems
High School 03 0 500.000 1,834,986 10,448,982 2,407,019 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 15,189,947
Indoor Air Quality 0 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 125,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 1,175,000
Improvements
McDougle Middle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 1,50.000 0 1,700,000
Schaal Auditorium
Mechanical Systems 995.490 650,000 - 0 36,000 0 140.000 150,000 0 325.000 0 1.050.000 3,345,490
Mobile Classrooms 450,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 SWAM 0 1,33.000
Paving and Parking 694,590 0 0 - 0 0 204,127 149,603 125,337 317,243 251,866 189,944 2,132,710
Lot Repairs
Planning for Future 0 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 150,000 45.000
Prol•cts
Roofing Projects 938,820 258,500 506.000 0 0 552200 1.039.700 700.000 700.000 200.000 0 4996,026
Technology 6.832.502 1.000.000 1.125.000 1.125,000 1200.000 1,500.000 1.500.000 1.750.000 1,750,000 2.000.000 2.000.000 21.792,502
Transportation 225,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325.000
Center Expansion
.Mndows 0 156000 0 0 0 225,000 543,000 1,140,000 245,000 0 a 2,619,000
Replacements
Total Project Cale 25,093,246 6,366,623 5,725,9" 12,9116,992 13,142,019 6,596,327 7,999,303 9.093,937 4.642,243 5.091,6" 9.299,944 101,079,476
8
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Proposed Project Funding
Proled Funds
6!30102 2002-03 2003-04 200445 200546 2006-07 2007-06 200649 2009.10 2010.11 2011.12 T01a1 •�i1"
Total Pay,As-YouGo 12,622,461 5,61."23 4,475,966 6,061,962 3,957,019 4,136,327 4,299,303 4,393,937 4,42,243 5,091,$" 5,299,9" 62,997,691
Funds
Bond Funds
1997 Bands 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 1y 0 0 0 0 0
2001 Batas 11,986,322 730,000 1,250,000 1,125,000 9,225,000 2,430,000 0 0 0 0 0 26,766,322
2/3 Not Debt Banda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Bond Funds it 966,322 750,000 1,280 000 1,125.000 9,225,000 2,450,000 0 0 0 0 0 261789,322
Akwnsdve Financdng 0 0 0 3.700,000 0 0 3,700,000 3,700,000 0 0 0 11,100,000
Grad Funds 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Othar 182.462 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192,462
Total Project Funding 25,003,2" 6.366.623 5,725 984 12,846,982 13162,019 6.584,327 7.999.363 6 093 937 4,842,243 5,001,806 5,2999" 101,076,475
i
9
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 ` " .� .-
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Neil G. Pedersen Nettie Collins-Hart, Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent for Instructional Services
Raymond J. Reitz Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent
Chief Technology Officer for Support Services"
TO: John Link
Orange County Manager
FROM: Neil G. Pedersen
Superintendent
RE: CIP
DATE: March 11, 2002
On Thursday, March Th, the Board of Education approved the submission of a CIP request
to the BOCC. The document was transmitted to you via Donna Dean on Friday,March 81. We
will have staff available at your March 18`h meeting to answer questions about our request. 'I'm
attaching other cover documents that have been sent to the Board during the development of the
CIP that may be useful to the County Commissioners. I did want to highlight a few points for
you.
On March 7', the Board changed the original recommended size for a small high school
from 500-700 students to"a minimum of 750 students." It was felt that this would provide a better
economy of scale and would necessitate no more than two smaller high schools during the next ten
years. The Board also clarified that it preferred to locate a small high school in the southern end of
the district,but would investigate northern sites. Therefore,as long as no decision has been made
about a southern site,I believe that when planning begins for the Eubanks Rd/Old 86 site that one
scenario should provide for-the possibility of a high school on that site. The Board also reaffirmed
its commitment not to expand the capacity of the current high schools.
At this time, our search for a site in the southern end of the district has brought us to a site
off of Rey Road and Smith Level Road. I have attached some background information on this site
and we have some additional drawings that you are welcome to review that don't lend themselves
to photocopying. This information was shared at our televised meeting on February 7'. We are
continuing to study'the feasibility of this site and, of course, cannot proceed with its acquisition
without first seeking and acquiring the approval of the BOCC.
Within the next day or two, I should have to you our responses to the Commissioners'
questions about small high schools. This will be incorporated in materials being submitted to you
in conjunction with the March 25'joint meeting.
I also want to clarify that the Citizens Advocating for a Third High School (CATS)is
independent from the school district. CATS is holding an`organizational"meeting on March 13''
at 7 p.m. at Scroggs Elementary School. One of its leaders,Etta Pisano, a parent in our
community, asked that the school district share information about projected enrollment,potential
sites, and the pros and cons of smaller.high schools. We are happy to do this and believe the
purpose is consistent with our desire to have public discussion on these issues. Opportunities to '
this point have been quite limited. I do want to clearly distinguish this from a separate planning
effort that we hope to initiate shortly on what a small high school might look like from both a
programmatic and facility point of view.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
� a G
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Neil G.Pedersen Nettie Collins-Hart,Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent for Instructional Services
Raymond J.Reitz Steve Scroggs,Assistant Superintendent
Chief Technology Officer for Support Services
TO: Board of Education
FROM: Neil G.Pedersen
Superintendent
RE: Proposed 2002-12 Capital Investment Plan
DATE: January 30,2002
At the February 7a'meeting of the Board of Education,the administration will '
present a ten-year Capital Investment Plan. This plan is presented as a starting point for
serious,broad-based discussions that will set priorities for the development of capital
projects in the district for many years ahead..
The plan is developed around the financial resources as currently projected by the
County Manager(see attachment). Up front,we should note that these financial
projections could fluctuate considerably from year to year,either upward or downward.
The plan reflects priorities and compromises that must be made if we are to operate
within this level of funding. The plan as presented neither meets all of our needs nor
does it provide some facilities quite as early as we believe that they will be needed. The
administration,however,believes that it provides a roadmap•for the district that,although
ambitious,is based upon current realities and reasonable anticipation of additional
revenues. The only unfunded projects included in this plan are two schools that are
proposed for a bond referendum to be held in 2006,five years after the last referendum.
New Facilities
The highlights of the plan pertaining to new facilities are as follows:
1. In 2002,acquire a high school site in the southern end of the school district to
construct a small,progressive 500 to 700 student high school. An analysis of the
sites under consideration will be provided at the February 7`h meeting. It should be
noted that at this time the administration is not aware of a site in the southern end of
the district that could accommodate a 1500 student,comprehensive high school
unless the Board was willing to consider condemnation'of property. Even if this
strategy were pursued,there are other potential obstacles with sites that have been
2
identified. Later in this memo,we will outline the positive programmatic benefits of
a smaller high school that drive this proposal.
2. Open Elementary School No.9 in the Meadowmont development for the 2003-04
_ school year. Although it is not germane to the CIB,-'the administration proposes that
the Board initiate a process to consider developing a unique program at this school
that has the potential to attract students to it from across the district,thereby
relieving overcrowding in elementary schools in the western part of the district. If
this should not prove attractive to a sufficient number of families, the administration
would have to lead the development of a major redistricting plan in the fall of 2002.
3. Erect six or seven mobile classrooms at East Chapel Hill High School for the 2003-
04 school year to cope with overcrowding at the high school level(CHHS already
has six mobile classrooms to supplement its permanent capacity). The overcrowding
anticipated in upcoming years at the high school level cannot be relieved without
using some temporary solutions.
4. Open High School No.3 in 2005-06 on the southern site.
5. In 2006-07 open Elementary No. 10 on the Old 86/Eubanks site acquired by the
County. This school site must be jointly planned with the County. This proposal
includes co-locating another school,a fifth middle school, on the same site. Some
County Commissioners have expressed a strong desire for more than one school to
be located on this site as a cost savings measure.
6. In 2006,hold a bond referendum to include another small high school(High School
No.4),possibly to be located at Lincoln Center, and Middle School No.5. This,of
course, is a decision that the County Commissioners would have to make with input
from a county task force. It is not our intent to get ahead of the County
Commissioners;however,in this plan we are attempting to provide a roadmap that
meets the needs of our projected student enrollment.
7. In 2008 open anew central office on school-owned property adjacent to the
Transportation Center and across the street from Chapel Hill High School. Lincoln
Center no longer can meet the needs of the administration of a school district that
exceeds 10,000 students. Either it must be renovated and expanded as it central
office or abandoned in favor of a facility specifically designed for administration.
This also provides the opportunity to convert Lincoln back to its original purpose: an
educational facility. In addition,by this time,the leased gym and former vocational
building will revert to the Board of Education under the terms of the current lease.
8. In 2009-10,open High School No.4,providing additional capacity for
approximately 500 students. Presumably,this school would be at Lincoln Center but
could be at another site if this proved unfeasible for any reason.
9. In 2009-10, open Middle School No.5 on the Old 86/Eubanks site.
3
Renovation of Current Facilities
A major modification to previous CIPs is the identification of major renovation
projects by type of project as opposed to a school-by-school basis. This allows us to
address those projects that are of the highest priority,specifically those that relate to
health and safety. It also allows us to reach more schools sooner, avoiding leaving some
schools to the very end of the plan.
It should be pointed out,however,that by attempting to address our need for new
facilities to accommodate our growing student population and staff,there are some years
in the middle of the plan when renovation projects will be limited. Nevertheless, of the
$61.2 million budgeted over the next ten years for capital improvements,63%is directed
to improve older facilities.
4
A Proposal for Smaller High Schools
The element of this plan that potentially is the most controversial and, therefore,
in most need of further processing is the proposal to move toward the design of smaller
high schools. This is a recommendation that is in the draft of the strategic plan that will
be coming before the Board of Education in February. The plan makes a case for the
need to provide high school settings that are adapted to the changing youth culture and
the social and economic needs of the 21"Century. The strategic plan also speaks to the
desirability of more school choice within our district.
Over the years,our district has been well served by the large,comprehensive high
school model. Our current high schools are nationally recognized for producing students
with strong academic backgrounds that prepare them for entrance to higher education
institutions of their choice. They also have successful interscholastic athletic programs
and outstanding opportunities in the arts. One might reasonably ask,why tamper with
success?
One of the hallmarks of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools is its commitment
to success for each and every one of its students. Although the comprehensive high
school model embodies an attempt to meet a diverse array of needs,clearly it misses
major segments of our population. Too many students are not academically motivated
and perform well below their potential. Some students choose not to adjust to the social
structures of a large,sometimes impersonal high school and rebel,seek comfort in
cliques, or are perceived as outcasts. Some of our students of color lose a sense of
identity and disengage from school. Some students are really interested in pursuing
careers and or even beginning college-level work,and have little interest in the
traditional trappings associated with the high school culture. In short,the institution of
high school,which existed in its present form through most of the Twentieth Century,
misses the mark for a significant number of students. In the years ahead,especially as
technology plays a greater role in the delivery of instruction, it will become only more
outdated. The Board of Education's commitment to choice clearly leads us to consider
other options to the large,comprehensive high school model.
The interest in smaller high schools is gaining in popularity. In FY 2001,
Congress appropriated$125 million for the Smaller Learning Communities program,
which is designed to"support the planning,implementation, or expansion of small, safe,
and successful learning environments in large public high schools"(large is defined as
more than 1000 students). The Application for Grants for this program cites an earlier
national report issued in 1996 titled Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution
that recommends that high schools break into units of no more than 600 students. Due to
the fact that 70 percent of today's high school students attend high schools of more than
1000 students, it is not feasible to construct smaller high schools in most communities.
Consequently,much of the literature has been directed toward dividing large high
schools into smaller units. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools is in an advantageous
position of designing high school structures that fit this programmatic model.
5
The USDOE application cites research that supports the following benefits of
smaller high schools:
Smaller schools support academic achievement
a Smaller schools promote academic equity
• Smaller schools prepare students for the future
• Attendance is higher and dropout rates lower,in smaller schools
• Student attitudes and behaviors are more pdsitive in smaller schools
e Extracurricular participation rates are higher in smaller schools
• Smaller schools reduce alienation
A major focus of the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation is support for creating
small high schools. The Foundation's website(www.gatesfoundation.org,)has a wealth
of information and research on the topic.
Research suggests that the potential advantages of small schools will not be
realized if size is the only element that is changed. Consequently,we expect these
schools to differ programmatically from the current comprehensive high schools. A
.disadvantage of a small high school is that it cannot offer a curriculum that is quite as
comprehensive nor can it easily support the same level of co-curricular and athletic
opportunities. On the other hand,we envision that these smaller schools might have
smaller classes,increased differentiation within classes, longer periods of instruction,
more flexibility with respect to scheduling of classes,more web-based course offerings,
greater integration with the community,more off-campus instruction,more collaboration
with community colleges and,possibly,other higher education institutions,and stronger
ties to career exploration and preparation. In short,we would like to incorporate the
recommendations of the many recent studies on high school reform into these new
schools,paying particular attention to those aspects that would likely benefit students
who,traditionally,have not been well served by the current high school model.
Because these smaller high schools would be different from our comprehensive
high schools,we expect to offer students with choices about which schools they want to
attend. It also might be anticipated that more students might,start at the comprehensive
high schools and transfer to the smaller schools once their interests become better
defined.
Obviously,we must be attentive to the cost-implications of this proposal. At this
time,we believe that the capital and operating costs for these smaller high schools will be
comparable to the costs associated with comprehensive high school programs. This does
mean that some academic offerings may be scaled back and that some non-academic
aspects of the traditional high school might not be replicated. For example,a school
might have a very limited interscholastic sports program,focusing instead on intramurals
or personal fitness or alternative recreational activities. It may be time to consider
providing alternative high school models that are not driven by athletics,bands,
yearbooks,proms, and other traditions that have remained essentially unchanged for most
of the last century. The new model might be driven by technology and distance leaming,
6
contemporary issues,developing a sense of community,and the transition from
adolescence to adulthood(life skills, apprenticeships, enrollment in college level courses,
learning off-campus, and flexible "learning"hours).
One way that capital costs could be held down is by providing more flexible
hours for students and by offering more courses off-campus. We might consider a model
in which some students attended only in the morning while others attended in the
afternoon or evening. Some students might take one or more courses over the Internet.
Some students might be dual enrolled in a community college. Some students might take
some of their courses at a high school in a neighboring district that has areas of
specialization not offered at our schools. Such flexibility might allow us to educate far
more students in a high school than its official capacity. In some respects,this
scheduling flexibility produces the same economies of a multi-track year-round school in
that all students are never in attendance at the same time.
A cost that must be considered in this model is transportation. If we are to ensure
equity, offering choices requires that additional resources be dedicated to transporting
students to school. We would need to dedicate some capital funds,probably from the
recurring capital budget,to the purchase of additional school buses. The magnitude of
this effort could be reduced by taking advantage of the municipal transportation system.
We also might qualify for some federal or private funds that are available to support
magnet schools and smaller school communities.
Our purpose at this time is to introduce the concept of constructing smaller high
schools as an option to the outstanding comprehensive high schools that we already have
in the district. If the Board of Education is interested in pursuing this idea,the
administration will structure a process for soliciting feedback from our constituents and
engaging in an intensive planning process.
We look forward to the opportunity to present the entire Capital Investment Plan
to the Board of Education on February 7''.and to process the major issues with our
community as well as with the County Commissioners.
CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
- . 750 Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516-2881
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Fax: (919) 969-2474
_ Neil G.Pedersen Steve Scroggs,Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent - for Support Services
William J.Mullin, Director of Facilities
Management
MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Scroggs
FROM: Bill Mullin
SUBJECT: Proposed Capital Investment Plan 2002-12
DATE: January 28, 2002
Attached please find a proposed 2002-12 Capital Investment Plan. In developing this
year's plan, the following factors were taken into consideration:
ii A Strategy to Address Future Growth in Student Enrollment
• County Funding Plan
• Commitment to Improve Conditions at Older Facilities
The attached 2002-12 Capital Investment Plan outlines a balanced approach to address
these issues over the next ten years.
A Strategy to Address Future Growth in Student Enrollment
Student enrollment is projected to increase over the next ten years another 2,950
students. The increase will occur in all grade levels but high school enrollment is
expected to grow the most. Over the next ten years, elementary school enrollment is
projected to increase 685, middle school enrollment increases 675, and high school
enrollment increases 1,590.
The approved 2001 Bond Referendum included funds to address the increase in
elementary school enrollment. The increase in middle school enrollment becomes
critical and exceeds the 107% level of service in 2007/08. High school increases are
occurring now and projected to exceed the 110% level of service in 2003/04.
The blueprint to address the growth in student enrollment is outlined in the following
timeline for new facilities:
2002/03 *Acquisition of High School Site
2003/04 *Elementary School#9 Opens.at Meadowmont
*Mobile Classrooms added at ECHHS
2004/05
2005/06 *High School #3 Opens on New Site with Capacity of 500
2006/07 *Elementary School#10 Opens on Old 86 Site
*BOND Referendum scheduled to include:
-Another High School (possible conversion of Lincoln Center)
-5th Middle School
2007/08
2008/09 *New Central Office Opens on Property across from CHHS
2009/10 *High School#4 Opens with Capacity of 500 ( possible conversion
of Lincoln Center) built with 2006 Bond Funds
*5th Middle School Opens on Old 86 Site
built with 2006 Bond Funds
County Funding Plan
County revenue projections for the next ten years include revised sales tax and impact
fee receipts. Sales tax receipts have been modestly reduced as a result of economic
conditions and state projections. Impact fees have been increased substantially to
reflect current activity and fee increases. The budgeted impact fees are a straight
projection based on last year's Tischler&Associates, Inc. report. The county budget
office will adjust impact fee revenue projections as future development is confirmed.
Additionally, a $6.2 Million Impact Fee balance exists. This balance results from impact
fees accumulating at a rate greater than projections over the past few years. These
funds have been included in the 2002-12 CIP.
The County has also identified a financing plan that produces $11.1 Million in alternative
funding for the district. The funding plan, not yet approved, was presented at the
December 11, 2001 County Commissioners meeting. It is part of a major financing plan
that includes the 2001 bond obligations. The proposed county financing plan is spread
over a period of several years to soften the impact of higher tax rates needed to help
pay for the debt. The district's $11.1 million in alternative financing is available in years
2004/05, 2007/08 and 2008/09 and is included in the 2002-12 CIP. Although we
recognize that this plan has not been adopted, we used it as a starting point in
preparing this CIP. The School Board may elect to request different amounts of funding
under a different timeline.
Commitment to Improve Conditions at Older Facilities
The increase in budgeted CIP funds provides opportunities to improve conditions in the
older schools. Of the $61.2 million budgeted over the next ten years, 63% is directed to
improve older facilities. The proposed plan includes initiatives to address major areas
such as building infrastructure improvements, fire/safety system replacements,
mechanical system upgrades, and electrical enhancements. The plan continues
- funding the roof replacement program, asphalt repairs and paving, and technology
projects. New undertakings are also included in this year's plan. The new work
includes replacing inefficient light fixtures, funding indoor air quality improvements, and
replacing windows at older schools.
The CIP's spreadsheet format has also been modified and provides more detailed
information. General school renovations projects have been eliminated. Instead,
functional categories of work are identified with proposed projects for specific schools
listed within each major category of work. This format targets priority needs. Multiple
projects of similar type are scheduled at various schools providing a faster approach for
corrective action.
Highlights of the proposed 2002-12 Capital Investment Plan include the following:
• The plan includes the purchase of a school site and construction of a high school
with capacity for 500 students. The high school is scheduled to open in 2005/06.
• A new Central Office is planned to be built on district property across from
Chapel Hill High School.
• The capital needs identified in the approved 2001 Bond are scheduled and
include Elementary School#9 opening in 2003, Elementary School#10 opening
in 2006, and major improvements to the HVAC systems at Chapel Hill High
School in 2002/03.
• The plan continues the roof management program and includes immediate
replacement projects at Chapel Hill High School and Seawell Elementary School
• The plan funds new initiatives directed at the older facilities that include
Fire/Safety System replacements, Indoor Air Quality improvements, light fixture
upgrades, window replacement, and door/hardware upgrades.
• Technology funding is included to address the district's revised technology plan.
• Mobile classrooms are planned for East Chapel Hill High School to temporarily
address increases in enrollment until permanent facilities are built.
We look forward to discussing the plan at the February 7"' meeting.
MMOSELEY
� � � HARRIS&":11ti MCCLINTOCK
® W4VYl.Ir1Ht4:�°:CHITECTS.COM
Ray Road's intersection with Smith Level Road would need to be improved to a three lane
section with separate right and left turn lanes onto Smith Level Road.
-- Rock Haven Road to the east Is a private road in a high-density residential development. Since
It is not designed for heavy traffic volumes and is within a residential community, use of it as an
access road to the school is strongly discouraged.
Utility Infrastructure: An existing 12"waterline exists along Smith Level Road. An 8"public water
lirie would need to be tapped from that line and extended 1,200 L f. along Ray Road from the
east: Additionally, the waterline would be required to loop approximately 1,600 1.f. through the
school site to connect to the 8"Rock Haven Road water line.
Three possible routes for sanitary sewer exist:
Option One Is an 8"gravity sewer line 1,000 L f. off site on Smith Level Road that would require
easements from property owners to the east of the school site to provide access.
Option Two Is on Rock Haven Road that is served by on 8"sanitary sewer line 1,100!,f. from the
proposed school building location and appears to be capable of gravity flow. A 3001.f. utility
easement from the apartment complex may be required.
Option Three is a 1,200 Lf extension to the north to fle Into Highland Hills Apartments. A 200 1.f.
utility easement from the apartment complex may be required.
One hundred percent of the cost of extending utility lines would be the responsibillty of the
school system on all three sites.
Approximate
Buildable Area: Total Acreage 39.75
Acreage in Perimeter, Stream Buffers 4.00
Acreage in 20%or greater slopes 5.80
Net Buildable Area: Approximately 30 acres
Approximate linear feet of public road improvements 1,100 Lf.
Estimated opinion of cost of road improvements in 2002 dollars ($95,000-$110,000)
Approximate linear feet of public water line improvements 2,800 I.f.
Estimated opinion of cost of water line improvements in 2002 dollars ($100,000-$125,000)
Approximate linear feet of public sewer line improvements 1,100 Lf.
Estimated opinion of cost of sewer line improvements in 2002 dollars ($50,000-$60,000)
Total opinion of public infrastructure costs: Range of approximately$245,000-$295,000
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools High School Site Selection Study
i
•
a1I NOW
AM
FYI &POIL
OR
+'t�*f tiff s{?Ilf
limb
Ir Awl
Mal9 � ti
'C- C °_®�/ HARRIS&
`'''';'ri1''` C:'"''l MCCLINT'OCK
+ra:vw,taH:eA1CHITECrs_c0Tvf
Site Analysis — Site 1
• f�i 'i 9 I i r
Owner. Glover Enterprises LLLP
Jurisdiction. Carrboro
Zoning: Residential 10- Conditional Use
Permit Required
Buffers: Type A -Opaque (Width Varies)
50' Stream Buffer
Watershed District: No
Max. Bldg. Height- 35' (May require a variance)
Acreage: 39.75
Pin#: 9777493386
2001 Valuation: $695,625($17,500/acre)
General Description of Site: The site is fully wooded with a combinaifon of mature hardwoods
and mixed pines. Old remnants of a homestead exist on the site.
: . Land Use/Zoning Issues:All non-residenf3al developments must meet the "Good Nelghbor"
Performance Standards mltigaffng a wide range of potential pollutants Fora high school site,
noise and light levels could pose a challenge.
Stormwater management regulations include provislons for not damaging downstream or
upstream properties Typical measures would include reducing water quantity and discharge
rates and improving water quality.
Parking requirements are five spaces per classroom.
Soils: Soils maps indicate that the north and western portions of the tract contain bedrock at
depths of 1'-b'below grade along the 20%or greater slopes and drainage ways.
Slopes: The entrance to the site off of Ray Road is located on the high point of the property. The
site slopes to the north at an average gradient of 6.5% with severe slopes being located along
the northern and western property lines.
Road Infrastructure: Ray Road is an unimproved private gravel road with the exception of the
first 7001,f. adjacent to Smith Level Road which are maintained by NCDOT.
Approximately 1,100 Lf of road improvements would be required from the intersection with
Smith Level Road along the entire site frontage. The improvements required would be a two
lane paved section with ditches and a right turn taper into the school property. Improvements
would be complicated by the fact that property owners along Ray Road have significant
encroachments into the future right of way(i.e. mailboxes, landscaping).
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools High School Site Selection Study
MOSELEY
CHC l i HARRIS McCLINTOCK
:!t j/ 7iSiai��l:i YVWYI.MHM:��CHITECiS coM
Ray Road's intersection with Smith Level Road would need to be improved to a three lane
section with separate right and left turn lanes onto Smith Level Road.
Rock Haven Road to the east is a private road in a high-density residential development. Since
it is not designed for heavy traffic volumes and is within a residential community, use of it as on
access road to the school is strongly discouraged.
Utility Infrastructure: An existing 12"waterline exists along Smith Level Road. An 8"public water
line would need to be topped from that line and extended 1,200 1.f, along Ray Road from the
east. Additionally, the water line would be required to loop approximately 1,6001.f, through the
school site to connect to the 8"Rock Haven Road water line.
Three possible routes for sanitary sewer exist
Option One is an 8"gravity sewer line 1,0001.f. off site on Smith Level Road that would require
easements from property owners to the east of the school site to provide access.
Option Two Is on Rock Haven Road that is served by on 8"sanitary sewer line 1,100 L from the
proposed school building location and appears to be capable of gravity flow.A 300 I.f, utility
easement from the apartment complex may be required
Option Three is a 1,200 1.f, extension to the north to tie into Highland Hills Apartments. A 2oo 1.f.
utility easement from the apartment complex may be required.
One hundred percent of the cost of extending utility Ilnes would be the responsibility of the
school system on all three.sites.
Approximate
Buildable Area: Total Acreage 39.75
Acreage in Perimeter, Stream Buffers 4.00
Acreage in 20%or areater slopes 5.80
Net Buildable Area: Approximately 30 acres
Approximate linear feet of public road improvements 1,100 I.f.
Estimated opinion of cost of road improvements in 2002 dollars ($95,000-$110,000)
Approximate linear feet of public water line improvements 2,800 I.f.
Estimated opinion of cost of water line improvements in 2002 dollars ($100,000-$125,000)
Approximate linear feet of public sewer line improvements . 1,100 I.f.
Estimated opinion of cost of sewer line improvements in 2002 dollars ($50 000-$60 0QQ
Total opinion of public infrastructure costs: Range of approximately$245,000-$295,000
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools High School Site Selection Study
ctic HARRIS K
McCLINTOCK
WWW. IHMARCHIi=CiS Corti
SUMMARY
Most of the rock appears to be isolated to the perimeter ai nd steeper slopes of the site and
should not be o significant impact to development.
Average gradients in buildable areas for Sites#i and#2 are comparable at 6.5%-8%but with
grades averaging in excess of 5% the sites may require some retaining walls and extensive
earthwork to meet accessibility requirements.
The biggest issue for this site appears to be infrastructure costs for improving Ray Road and
extending water and sewer to the site, the costs of which is almost double Site#2.
NCDOT has concerns about establishing right of way to publicly improve and dedicate Ray
Road without extensive opposition from neighboring property owners who have recently turned
down a petition to have Ray Road paved. The existing grave!road is not in the centerline of the
right of way and many property owners along Ray Road have significant encroachments into
the future roadway.
' Watershed protection requirements, though costly, should not prohibit the ability to develop the
site. Stormwoter regulations for ail three sites are comparable. if the school system chooses to
implement the High Performance Guidelines for Public Facility Regulations, these measures
would be required for certification anyway.
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools High School Site Selection Study
Community Use of School Facilities
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
All 14 campuses of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, including the
administrative grounds and gym at.Lincoln Center, are available for community use and
are used by agencies, groups, organizations, businesses and individuals in the
community, region, state and nation. In fact, many of the large community events in
Chapel Hill and Carrboro are conducted at school facilities. Examples of large and well-
known events are the annual Fiesta del Pueblo, which began at Lincoln Center and has
moved to Chapel Hill High School, the Walk For Education which concludes at Lincoln
Center, the annual Greek Orthodox Festival, and a range of meetings,services, games
and programs for youth.
Six of the school facilities are a part of joint use agreements with the town of
Chapel Hill (5) or the town of Carrboro (1). The joint use agreements generally provide
for improved facilities on school property that are used by the schools during the day and
by the parks and recreation departments in the evenings, weekends and other days when
school is not in session. Smith Middle School is also a part of a joint use agreement but is
not included in this report of use during 2000-01.
Conservative estimates of the use includes the following:
• 155 different groups,organizations, churches, and agencies used CHCCS
(See the following pages for a list of the types of groups which used school
facilities.)
• 651 types of events were held in school facilities. These included recreational
and sports activities, community meetings by other agencies and nonprofits, UNC
classes, community sports events, major regional festivals,church services, Scout
meetings, cultural arts events and homeowner meetings.
• 112,800 individuals participated in these events.
The facilities most in demand by the community are outdoor fields and
gymnasiums and auditoriums. Elementary gyms are not constructed for adult
participation so few adult groups wish to use elementary gyms;however,the gyms at the
secondary level are in high demand. Some requests are denied because the facilities are
already committed to a school team or another group. Gym use is particularly high in the
fall and winter seasons.
40 B
4
In order to reserve a school facility, potential users must complete a facility use
request. The request form is forwarded to the principal of the school in order for the
school to determine that the space is not already committed to another use or group. Most
interior users also require that a staff member be assigned to the use in order to unlock
the facility, be available for facility-related needs and then to secure the building after the
use. After the principal assigns a staff member and signs the request, the user is informed.
School facilities occasionally may not be made available if there are acute
maintenance needs in the space. Most requests for space are approved.
Due to the volume of use and beginning with the 2001-02 school year, we are
expecting users to pay in advance for the use of school space where a fee is involved. If
use is cancelled 48 hours before the event, a full refund will be provided.
Attached are the names of users of the schools since July 1, 2000.
40 C
Policy Code: 5030 CommunityM>WseM of Facilities
A. General Principles
The board endorses OcommunityM Ouse44 of facilities for purposes that contribute to the school program,
OcominmiityA affairs, or the goals of the)+Conimtziity44 Schools Act. The Ouse*of school facilities
should be consistent with the goals and objectives of the board and school district and must not conflict
with the educational program. Although school facilities are available for*community44 fuse(,programs
operated by the school system take precedence in the*use44 of facilities. Once Ocommunity�4 Ouse44 of a
facility has been approved by the school and district,that Ouse-i will take priority for the space and every
effort will be made to honor the reservation. If an emergency arises,the principal will be expected to
provide at least a two-week notice to the ftommunity*group. If less than a two-week notice is
provided,the principal will attempt to find alternative space for the*commtz*44 group's activity.
First priority for facility OuseO, if space is not needed by school system programs,will be given to local
government agencies followed by other*community44 groups whose mission is similar or complimentary
to that of the school district.
It is the desire of the Board of Education that OcommunityM groups that wish to Ouse44 school facilities not
discriminate based on the criteria contained in Policy 1710 (on the basis of race,color,national origin,sex,
pregnancy,religion,age,secual orientation or disability). If ftommunity44 groups have practices or
policies that violate this policy,these groups shall be charged fees and receive priority at the same level as
nonprofit or for-profit organizations.
Schools shall not sponsor community groups that discriminate on the basis of the prescribed criteria in
Policy 1710.
Faculty and staff who seek access to school facilities beyond the scope of their work as school personnel
Will follow this policy.
B.Priority in Use/Fee Structure
Priority in the use of school facilities and the fee structure will be in accordance with the following user
categories:
1. School organizations,including student organizations
Fees: None
2. School related groups (organizations formed to support the school in some manner,such as the
PTA,teachers and principals organizations and booster clubs)
Fees: Fees for providing use of cafeteria kitchens will be charged to cover costs.The principal may
require custodial or other supervisory services at a fee.
3. School-sponsored organizations or other youth-serving groups that meet the following criteria:
a.their goals and objectives are similar to or compatible with the goals and objectives of the Board
of Education;
b.their meetings occur at the end of the school day or so that no costs are incurred by the school;
c.they comply with school board policies,including those on discrimination and volunteer screening;
d.no fees or very low fees are charged to the participating youth; and
httpll nt5.scbbs.com/cgi•bin/om_isapi.dll?clicndD=592993&advquery=community°/.20use&heidingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobasc=chaphill.nfo&record=lAC4)&sofpage=PL Doc Page 1 of
e.the majority ofparticipants are students in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
4. Local government agencies supported by tax funds of the community(Town of Chapel Hill,Town of
Carrboro, Orange County)
Fees: Utility fees for the use of facilities may be charged. Custodial or supervisory fees will be
charged unless the organization has pre-arranged and been approved to provide its own custodial
services.
5. All other non-profit groups and staff members who run camps and school-related activities whose
purposes are not in conflict with the mission of the school district and do not include sales or
solicitations on school premises or exploitation of children.
Fees: Rental,utility,custodial and supervisory fees will be charged.
6.For profit groups whose purposes are not in conflict with the mission of the school district and do
not include sales or solicitations on school premises or exploitation of children.
Fees:Rental,utility, custodial and depreciation of property fees will be charged.
The superintendent will submit the amount or method of calculating fees to be charged in accordance with
this fee structure to the board for approval.
C.Liability
Each organization seeking to use facilities will be required to sign a statement that the organization has
inspected the facilities,,that they are appropriate for the use intended and that the organization agrees to
hold harmless the school system and indemnify the schools and defend any claim or action against the
schools arising out of loss or damage to persons or property occurring on school premises in conjunction
with the use.
Legal References: Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C.A. §� 4071-4074; Community Schools Act, G.S. 115C,
art. 13; 1150-524(b), 160A-272
Cross References: School F461ity and/or Grounds Use Application, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
Adopted: 5/6/99
Revised:2/1/01
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
http://nt5.scbbs.coWcgi-bidom isapi.dll?clicntlD=5 92993&advquery=community%2Ouse&headingswithbits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=chaphill.nfo&record=(AC4)&sofpage=PL Doc Page 2 of 2
Policy Code: 5005 Community Schools Program
The board supports the principles of the Community Schools Act by encouraging greater community
involvement in school activities and increased utilization of school facilities. The board recognizes learning
as a lifelong process and encourages the participation of all citizens and organizations in the development
of a community education program. The community schools concept provides an excellent framework to
enhance educational,social,cultural,recreational and enrichment programs for meeting individual and
community needs.
In support of the M*communitym schools program,the board encourages the OuseM of designated school
facilities for planned,organized activities that benefit the Ocommunity+H and that are compatible with the
educational program of the schools system and with public school laws and regulations of the state or
federal government.
WConunm #residents and agencies may provide input through a Pcomrnm*44 schools advisory
council, composed of citizens,parents and students,when possible,and an interagency advisory
committee,composed of representatives from various*community*agencies. The board will appoint a D1!
communityll schools coordinator who will be responsible for providing support for the*community�N
schools and interagency advisory committees,maximizing the*used of Ncommuruty+H volunteers in the
schools and promoting and directing maximum OuseO of the public schools and public school facilities as
centers for Ncomnur*44 development.
After School and Summer Enrichment Programs
The Community Schools Programs of after-school care,after school and summer enrichment and adult
education are extensions of the school day and part of the educational program of the school district.
The provision-of quality after-school care can affect the health and safety of the children who attend and
positively impact the education of students. Principals,in conjunction with School Governance
Committees,are expected to make space provisions to accommodate all students who apply for after-
school care.In planning new facilities,the board should request funds from the County Commissioners to
provide office space for classroom teachers and additional storage in each classroom,primarily for the use
of the after-school program. In order to serve eligible children requesting after-school services,it is
expected that classroom space will be used. Schools where these additional provisions have been
incorporated into the facility should have no waiting list for after-school services due to the lack of space.
Legal References: G.S. 115C art. 13
Cross References: School Volunteers(policy 5015 ,Screening of School Volunteers(policy 5016),)*
Community44 NUse41 of Facilities(policy 5030
Adopted:5/6/99
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
httpJ/nt5.scbbs.comtcgi-bialom isapi.dli?client[D=592993&advquery=community%2Ouse&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=chaphill.nfo&record=(A7C)&soflpage=PL Doc Page I of 1
CASS
Habitat for Humanity Orange Co.
Bouncing Bulldogs
New Destiny Christian Fellowship
Chapel Hill Dance Theater
Chapel Hill Service League
Chereo Collective -Fiscal Agent NC Dance
Indian Classical Music& Dance Society
Brother to Brother
Bob Gibbons/ AAU Basketball Tournament
The Ballet School of Chapel Hill
Dancentre, Inc
Bounds Dance Studio
Cary Ballet Company
Seven Day Adventist
Chapel Hill -Carrboro PTA Council
CB Productions
Rob Fisher-Chapel Hill Bible Church
AAU Baseball Team, U-13 Chapel Hip
AAU U-13 Baseball Team/ Carolina Charger
Jehovah's Witnesses
Pride of Carolina AAU Basketball Team
Chapel Hill Kehillah
New Destiny Ministries, Inc
Durham/ Chapel Hill Strikers Soccer Club
.Lincoln Tigers / Jonathan Bell
Capital Planning Group- Dennis Collins
Triangle Knights Basketball Academy
Christian Science Lecture Committee
Carolina Volleyball
Carolina Baseball Camp
Dept. Of Nutrition, UNC
PTA Thrift Shop
Capital Planning Group-Dennis Collins
St. Barbara's Greek Orthodox Church
Ryuko Kubota &Jill Fitzgerald, UNC-CH
New Beginnings Church
Bouncing Bulldogs/ Ray Fredrick, Jr.
Fred Astaire Dance Studio
Chandlers Green Homeowner's Assoc.
Carolina United Soccer Club
Eastern Cheer& Dance Association
Carolina Chargers Baseball Team
UNC JV Baseball
Montessori Comm. School
Chapel Hill Bible Church
NC Cagers Girl Basketball
Indian Classical Music& Dance Society
Jewish Community Center Without Walls
Chapel Hill Parks& Rec Dept
Triangle Futbol
Chapel Hill -Carrboro Adult Soccer Assoc.
First Baptist Church
Daisy Girl Scouts # 368
Brownie Girl Scout Troop #697
Carolina Song & Dance
Museum of Life &Science _
George Sherouse
Carrboro Recreation & Parks
Carolina Song & Dance
Cub Scout Pack# 835
Head Start
M.C.O.D.I.V. Church
Girl Scouts/ Laura Philpot
Davene Mainwaring Brownie Troop
Chapel Hill -Carrboro YMCA
Davene Mainwaring Brownie Troop
UNC-School of Education MAT Committee
Brownie Troop # 147
Delta Sigma Theta Sorority
Pine Knolls Family Resource Center
Bouncing Bulldogs
Newman Catholic Student Center
Skipsations
Girl Scout Junior Troop #1114 9
Rainbow Soccer, Ltd.
Nicole Pearson/ Foot ocker
Edgwater Place/ Condo Homeowners
El Pueblo, Inc
Pre-K/ Head Start
Chapel Hill Area Volleyball
Triangle Futbol
Chapel Hill Bible Church
Triangle Area Lacrosse League
Carolina Basketball School
UNC Ballroom Dance Club/ Heidi Martin
Lincoln Tigers/ Peter Singer
Cardinal Track Club
El Centro Latino of Orange County
Jewish Community Center
Prep Plus Services
American Legion Post # 6
Chapel Hill Police Dept.
Triangle Youth Ballet
Judea Reform Congregation
UNC Hospitals
First Union Securities
Relay for Life
Learn NC
Dept. of Nutr. / UNC
Durham - Orange Quitter's Guild
Rifaimarufi Order of America
Tar Devils Field Hockey Team
International Social Studies Project
Eastern Cheer& Dance Association
Hittmen Volleyball
Chapel Hill Allstars (124 Aau Basketball)
Mark Brackett / First Union Securities
Headliners
Family Health International
Triangle -Alumnae Asso. Of Spelman Colleg
Sangam (UNC) Devang Gujarathi
First Church of Scientist, CH
Relay for Life
St Thomas More Catholic Grade School
Chapel Hill Allstars (124 Aau Basketball)
Carolina Courage
The Arc of Orange County
UNC Division of Pediatric
Cary Cardinals U14 AAU Girls Basketball
Starbound
Michael Oehler
Cedars H.O.A./ Donald Esterling
New Destiny Christian Fellowship
MCODIV Church
Brownie Girl Scout Troop #697
Brownie Troop #1845
Girl Scout Junior Troop #182
Brownie Troop #420
Cub Scout Den 6 Pack#.820
Cub Scout s Den 6
Girl Scout Brownie Troop # 751
Girl Scout Junior Troop #1149
Mammoth Records
Chapel Hill Bible Church
Raul Ortiz
International Masons
Mt Olive Masonic Lodge
Antioch Baptist Church
Jonas Holdeman / Cardinal Track Club
Ray Hartsfield
Triangle Country Dancers
St Paul AME Church
Carrboro Branch Library / James Lehrer
Lincoln Tigers / Kenneth Edwards
Cub Scout Pack# 811
Public School Foundation
Jazzercize
First Baptist Church
Studio A Dancers
Jillian Weiss
M.A. N.O.
School of Education,UNC
Brittany's Dance Studio
True Praise & Deliverance Tabernacle
3-20-02; i :26PM;Ch. HIII / Carrboro John Link ;919 969 2474+ { # •�2/ 2
•� l � t lW�rl l��•.� 7 ���
Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Telephone: (919) 967-8211
Fax: (919) 933-4560,
Neil Pedersen, Superintendent Nettle Collins-Hart,Assistant
Superintendent for Instructional Services
Ray Reitz,Chief Technology Officer
Stephen A. Scroggs,Assistant
Superintendent for Support Services
To: John Link
Manager,Orange County
From: Stephen A. Scroggs
Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
Re: Response to Request for Soccer Field Information
Date: March 20, 2002
As per your request, we are providing information concerning the soccer fields at Scroggs
and Smith.
Scroggs
The soccer field at Scroggs has been completed for 2.5 years. It is built on Town of
Chapel Hill land.
During the school day it is used as the playfield for the school.
From 4:00 pm until 6:00 pm, it is available for community use. It may be reserved by
contacting the Facilities Rental Office at CHCCS.The largest community user of the
field from 4:00—6:00 is Rainbow Soccer.
From 6:00 pm until,the field is controlled by the Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation
Department.They are responsible for the programming that takes place on the field
during those hours. A joint use agreement exists between the District and the Town
concerning the Scroggs site.
Smith
The soccer fields,tennis courts and softball fields are under construction off Homestead
Road.They are being built on land leased from UNC.The facility should be ready for use
in August 2002. A joint use agreement between the District,the Town of Carrboro and
Orange County was approved last year. That agreement places control of soccer field 3B
with Carrboro and Orange County and the others facilities with the District.
I hope this answers your questions,if not,please feel free to call if you need further
clarification
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Telephone (919) 967-8211
Fax (919) 933-4560
-Nell G. Pedersen Nettie Collins-Hart, Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent for Instructional Services
Steve Scroggs, Assistant Superintendent
for Support Services
To: Nettie Collins-Hart '
Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services
From: Emily Bivins
Director of Elementary Instructional Programs and Staff
Development
Re: PreK/Head Start Program and Space
Date: January 28, 2002
The PreK/Head Start program in Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools blends Head
Start eligible children, tuition paying children, More At Four eligible children and
exceptional education early intervention children. The program receives funding
from multiple sources and adheres to the Performance Standards of Head Start, NC
Childcare licensing requirements, More At Four requirements, exceptional education
requirements and the regulations of the school district. There are fifteen blended
classrooms. of 217 three and four year old children. We believe that our early
childhood classrooms should provide our most needy children and families with a
quality educational program to ensure school success when they enter our school
system. .We have ensured this by having the highest quality staff and four and five
star rated classrooms, which indicate the highest quality points given by the state of
North Carolina.
The PreK/Head Start classrooms are located in the followinci locations:
Location Number of Number of Children
classrooms
Carr Court- community location 3 52 children
Second Baptist-community location 1 16 children
Lincoln Center-central office location 2 21 children
Carrboro Elementary 3 38 children
Seawell Elementary 2 32 children
Chapel Hill High School 2 25 children
_ Glenwood Elementary School 2 33 children
TOTAL 15 217 children
With overcrowding in our school district, classrooms have been moved from
Scroggs Elementary and McDougle Elementary to available classrooms at
Glenwood Elementary and Carrboro Elementary. As new schools are built to meet
the growing student population in our community, PreK/Head Start classrooms will
be advocated for as part of the new facilities.
Recently, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools received state funding to serve 20
children and families eligible for the North Carolina PreK initiative, More At Four.
These spaces will not require additional classrooms because existing vacancies
will be converted to More At Four spaces and some students will meet multiple
eligibility criteria and can be enrolled in existing slots.
:A p 1"
The School Facilities Task Force presents the following recommendations to the
Orange County Board of County Commissioners. Detailed information related to each
recommendation is include in the remainder of this report:
i
The levels outlined in the current School
Construction Standards are adequate.
Student Capacity (page 15) • Elementary—600 students
• Middle—700 students
• High — 1,000 to 1,500 students
Mobile unit seating should not add to the
permanent seating capacity of a school
Use of Mobile Units (page 17) Instead, the capacity of a mobile unit
should serve as a temporary buffer during
construction of new facilities.
Membership provides the most realistic
picture of the actual number of students
attending schools. This method accounts
Best Practice for Determining Current for new student enrollees as well as those
Students (page 21) no longer attending class. The Task Force
agreed that student membership on the
second month (fortieth day of school) each
year should be the base number to use in
planning for future school facilities.
The Task Force agreed that it is important
to distinguish between the projected
number of students used in planning for
annual current expense budgets and the
number used for planning for future capital
facilities.
Using a compilation of methods for
Methodologies to Use in Projecting Future projecting future students is an important
Students (page 23) consideration in making the most accurate
projections. Three readily available
methods that are recommended are:
• State Department of Instruction Model
• School Impact/Student Generation
Report
• Orange County Planning Department
Model
• Cohort Survival Method
10
It is important to recognize the fact that
there is a potential for charter students to
return to the public school systems. The
Consideration of Charter Students (page Task Force recommends that as School
33) and County. staffs annually update current
and projected student membership, they
also update the number of charter
students that each system has.
The current construction standards identify
eight major elements of capital projects
including site acquisition, site'
Clarification of Project Components (page development, construction costs, fees,
34) technology, moveable equipment, start-up
costs and contingency.. The Task Force
provides definitions and examples of
project components.
Both districts identified items specific to
meeting State or Local codes. These
Allowances for Expenditures Related to particular items have potential to increase
meeting State and/or Local Ordinances project costs significantly. The Task Force
and Codes (page 35) recommends that, when necessary, the
Board allow each system to include these
items in the project budgets.
Many counties throughout the State have
recognized benefits and cost savings by
using the same school design time after
Use of Prototype Designs (page 36) time. The Task Force recommends that
the Board continue to encourage both
systems to pursue use of prototype
designs as new projects are planned.
Members of the Task Force agreed that
both districts have adopted some internal
measures to address this aspect of project
planning. The committee recommends that
the Commissioners continue to encourage
both systems to pursue value engineering
Value Engineering and Life Cycle Costing to the extent possible. The Task Force
(page 36) also recommends that the Board consider
making the High Performance Building
Standards (a report compiled by the
Triangle J COG and due out in the near
future) an addendum to the County's
adopted School Construction. Standards
report.
11
The Task Force recommends budgeting
project contingency at the State accepted
level of 3 '/2 to 4 percent of construction
Project Contingency (page 38) and site development costs. In The
accordance with the County's Policy on
Planning and Funding School Capital
Projects, the last phase of a project is a
final accounting of expenditures.
Inflation Factor (page 39) Based on recent construction (only) costs
the Task Force recommends an annual
inflation factor of 2 1/2 percent be applied to
the County's current Construction
Standards.
Other Considerations (page 40) The Task Force' recommends that the
Board of Commissioners encourage both
districts to consider the following items as
they begin construction of a new facility:
■ Energy efficiency measures
■ Possibilities of joint bidding
■ Designing buildings for ease in future
building additions
■ School siting and acreage
12
At
CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
2002-03 SCHOOL CAPACITY
2001-02 ADJUSTMENTS 2002-03
Elementary Schools capacity .K Rooms from 23 to 22 New Pre K Rooms Capacity
Carrboro Elementary 563 3 Ks=-3 2 new Pre K=-46 514
Ephesus Elementary 472 4 Ks=-4 4fi8.
Estes Hills Elementary 549 3 Ks =-3 546
FP Graham Elementary 570 4 Ks=-4 566
Glenwood Elementary 445 3 Ks=-3 442
McDougle Elementary 596 5 Ks=-5 591
Scroggs Elementary 609 5 Ks=-5 604
Seawell Elementary 498 3 Ks=-3 495
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTALS 4,302 -30 -46 4,226
Middle Schools
Culbreth Middle 670 NONE 670
McDougle Middle 732 NONE 732
Phillips Middle 732 NONE 732
Smith Middle 706 NONE 706
MIDDLE SCHOOL TOTALS 2,840 2,840
High Schools
Chapel Hill High School 19520 NONE 1,520
East Chapel Hill High School 1,515 NONE 1,515
HIGH SCHOOL TOTALS 3,035 3,035
DISTRICT TOTAL 10,177 10,101
Approved 11/21/00
ORANGE COUNTY
Policy on Planning and Funding Scliool Capital Projects
(This document is intended to clarify the expectations of the Orange County Board of Commissioners in
collaborating with the Boards of Education in planning for and implementing school capital projects)
1. Background
The County's ten year capital investment plan is a planning document that is updated annually.
Before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Board of County Commissioners approves the
funding plan in concept. However, funding of individual projects is contingent upon the scope
of work required to complete the project.
• Level 1 Projects: Level one projects are those projects that have a relatively small scope
of work and can be accomplished using a single prime contractor,in-house staff or entail
purchasing equipment and vehicles. Specific examples of Level 1 projects include
roofing projects,parking lot paving and re-wiring of existing buildings. The Board
approves the entire project ordinance at one time.
• Level 2 Projects: Level two projects are major projects that require several phases to
complete. For these projects, the Board of County Commissioners approves a four-phase
appropriation process to include:
• Concept/Pre-Planning Phase (includes preliminary programming and design work
that would result in conceptual drawings and preliminary cost estimates.
• Planning Phase(including siting&infrastructure)
• Design and Construction Approval Phase (including final design,equipment,
furnishings, non-recurring start up,technology,contingency)
• Schools have the latitude to shift funds between major components without
prior BOCC approval,providing that the actual cost of the project does not
exceed budget.
• Superintendents will provide the County Manager with written project
updates at their regular monthly meetings. In turn,the County Manager will
provide the Board of County Commissioners with written progress reports
related to the project.
• Final Accounting Phase
■ Upon completion of the project, School and County staff will reconcile actual
project expenditures with approved budget and provide the BOCC with a
"final accounting"of project.
Page 1 of 6
Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects
Approved 11/21M
2. Site Standards
In accordance with North Carolina State Statutes, a local board of education cannot 7executea contract nor expend funds to purchase a facility site without the consent of the local oaro
county commissioners. As each school system in Orange County plans for future school-related
facilities, it is important that they adhere to the following guidelines related to the potential
acquisition,either by purchase or donation, of a site, in addition to any siting criteria they may
have established internally:
Potential Sites-The Board of Education is to notify the Orange County Board of
Commissioners, in writing, whenever they have tentatively identified a potential
school site for purchase, or if a potential donor indicates interest in donating a site to
the system. The written correspondence should provide the following information for
Commissioner consideration:
• Location,including tax map numbers,of the potential site;
• Opportunities for additional facilities to be co-located as a park site, as
outlined in the "Memorandum of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site
and Facility Planning";
• The availability of public utilities within the urban services boundaries of the
County;
• If a donated site:
• Any knowledge of a donor's plans for adjacent development;
• Special considerations or expectations the donor may have referenced in
initial discussions pertaining to the donation;
Upon receipt of the Board of Education's notification, the Commissioners will
appoint,by a majority vote of the Board, a representative to work directly with the
Board of Education. As a partner with the school system, the Commissioner
representative will receive information and provide input regarding talks and
negotiations related to the potential site. The Commissioner representative will share
information regarding the progress of talks and negotiations of the potential site with
other members of the Board of Commissioners.
Environmental Factors—A school system is to pay particular attention to the physical
environment surrounding the site and new facility.
• In order to avoid future flood hazards, a facility should not be located in close
proximity to wetlands, stream buffers, or in a flood plain. Facility siting should
also avoid other physical factors that create either additional construction or
longer-term maintenance problems, or other unfavorable environmental impacts.
Page 2 of 6
Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects
Approved 11/21/00
• Once a system acquires a site and before grading begins, each school system
receives State approval of its erosion control plan and additional County review to
ensure that unnecessary cutting of trees or clearing of land does not occur.
Adequate natural buffers are to be left intact with existing trees, or replanted if the
areas are disturbed during construction. Special attention should be paid to
"specimen"trees as outlined in the County land development code.
Road and Utility Requirements—Major elements for a system to consider in siting a
new facility relate to infrastructure requirements by a Town or other public utility. In
some recent instances, the systems have been required to provide costly infrastructure
such as sidewalks and road improvements. These elements greatly inflate
construction costs of new facilities. As a system begins initial planning,there should
be a joint meeting between elected Town, County and Education officials to discuss
particular requirements that all parties expect of other project partners.
3. Building Design Standards
As a school system selects a particular facility design,it is important that the most cost-effective
design alternative be pursued.,Historically in Orange County, new school buildings have been
designed uniquely for each particular project. The Board of Commissioners encourages systems
to pursue non-traditional, or prototype, designs that can be replicated for use'on more than one
project. Should a system choose a unique design, it is to provide a detailed cost comparison
analysis and justification in writing of why that particular approach was chosen over a prototype
design.
4. Construction Standards
Over the past few years, the County has given special attention to defining construction
standards for each school level—elementary, middle and high schools. The standards provide a
minimum and maximum square footage and student capacity for each level. As a system
undertakes construction of a new facility,it is critical that the system adheres to the most recent
school construction standards (estimated project cost should include a reasonable allowance for
inflation).
The Commissioners agree to provide funding for new school facilities that are designed within
the adopted standards. They do not agree to fund projects that go beyond the adopted standards
unless there is sufficient justification provided in writing by the Board of Education. One
justification for going beyond the standards relates to co-location of facilities,in particular
recreational facilities.In this case,the system must provide detailed explanations outlining the
benefits to be offered to the community and citizens, in the context of the intergovernmental
"Memorandum of Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site and Facility Planning"and the
"Orange County Parklands Acquisition and Evaluation Criteria" adopted by the Board of
Commissioners on December 7, 1999.
Page 3 of 6
Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects